Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Somno

User:Somno run at Sat Jan 31 13:17:09 2009 GMT Category: 4 Mainspace 3132 Portal talk: 4 Portal: 122 Talk: 249 Template talk: 11 Template: 9 User talk: 1533 User: 127 Wikipedia talk: 87 Wikipedia: 415

avg edits per page 1.84 earliest 13:44, 5 October 2007 number of unique pages 3097

total 5693 2007/10 57   2007/11  38   2007/12  357   2008/1  714   2008/2  481   2008/3  485   2008/4  364   2008/5  265   2008/6  238   2008/7  399   2008/8  347   2008/9  547   2008/10  293   2008/11  262   2008/12  450   2009/1  396

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 56 44 Baldwinsville, New York 30 Omarion 29 Sindy 25 Fonty's Pool 24 Manjimup, Western Australia 23 Brian Scalabrine 22 Wrong Turn 2 18 Glenbard East High School 17 Rachel Zoe 17 Ben Cousins 16 List of science fiction conventions 15 Prairie Ridge High School 15 Russell Dumas 15 2008 Western Australian gas crisis Talk: 10 Geelong Football Club 10 Geelong Football Club/HistoryDraft 8 Maria Houkli 8 List of science fiction conventions 8 River Oaks, Houston 8 Sindy 7 Savannah College of Art and Design 7 The Muppets' Wizard of Oz 6 Social work 5 Fonty's Pool 5 Geelong, Victoria 4 Pedigree Dolls & Toys 4 Gulfton, Houston 4 Don Mills Middle School 4 Three Sisters Portal: 10 Western Australia/Western Australia news/Archive 10 Western Australia/Western Australia news 8 Western Australia/Did you know 8 Western Australia/Nominate/Did you know 8 Western Australia 8 Western Australia/Selected article 7 Western Australia/Featured content 7 Western Australia/Did you know/Archive 5 Western Australia/Selected article/April 2008 4 Western Australia/Western Australia topics 3 Western Australia/Selected article/December 2007 3 Western Australia/box-header 3 Western Australia/Selected article/January 2008 3 Western Australia/Selected article/March 2008 2 Western Australia/Intro/4 Portal talk: 3 Western Australia Template: 2 Infobox WikiProject 2 City of Bankstown topics Template talk: 7 Did you know 2 Update after 2 GA nominee User: 36 Somno 25 Somno/Sandbox 14 Somno/Contributions 7 Somno/monobook.js 6 Somno/Menu 4 Somno/DYK 4 Somno/Bookmarks 3 UBX/Fremantle Dockers 2 Blehfu 2 UBX/Port Adelaide Power 2 Somno/RfA review Recommend Phase User talk: 212 Somno 10 Dancerdoll 9 68.236.36.160 8 Giggy 6 A895 6 Missriteen 5 Tiptoety 5 76Datsun280z 5 ManChowda 5 72.90.85.46 5 Entect 5 204.111.40.10 5 Andygradel 4 Adam.J.W.C. 4 Balloonman Wikipedia: 37 Suspected copyright violations 30 Good article nominations 29 Administrator intervention against vandalism 21 Australian Wikipedians' notice board 17 Requests for page protection 11 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 9 Usernames for administrator attention 8 Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 28 8 WikiProject Western Australia 6 Requested moves 5 Articles for deletion/Womensforum 5 Good articles 4 WikiProject Australian historic places 4 Articles for deletion/Brewno 4 Articles for deletion/Innovation management Wikipedia talk: 54 WikiProject Western Australia 9 Good article nominations 6 Criteria for speedy deletion 4 WikiProject Western Australia/0.7 articles 4 WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 3 Requests for adminship If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot.

Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2]

From Stifle's oppose

 * Moved here to avoid cluttering the RfA. Regards  So Why  11:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Look at the answers to the questions, hell, ask more if you like. This user seems very well endowed with policy knowledge. Assuming that the candidate "likely" lacks policy knowledge isn't good enough IMHO, why not try and investigate to find out for yourself? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do people insist on repeatedly questioning the same rationales by the same users?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I lack the wisdom to appreciate Wisdom's comment, since it is made in a near vacuum, I'm probably not alone.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's simply the latest incarnation of editcountitus. Stifle opposes anone who has less than 500 edits in the Wikipedia namespace, (Somno has 415.) Actually editing the encyclopedia is much more important than spamming "Delete per nom" on AFD, though Stifle's flawed logic favors the latter. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 21:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I still don't find it helpful to continuously challenge this oppose. He's been making it for quite some time.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because he's made it loads of times doesn't mean I accept his point of view, nor does it mean that I don't want to ridicule it. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to ridicule somebody's oppose, it might be better to take it to their talk page.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? This is an RfA-related matter, which involves the entire community. Talk pages (except this one which is more of a public noticeboard) are for more private matters that don't involve the community quite so much. Our disagreement on this matter, for example, might be better suited to our talk pages. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignore it. He always does the usual robot reasoning. There are always the usual robot admins who oppose people with the same robot-reasoning.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 04:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty out of line. Please see WP:NPA.  Criteria for adminship differs among participants at RfA.  Just because someone has a different set of criteria than yours doesn't make their reasoning "robotic" or their vote any less worthwhile.  Please reconsider your comments.Protonk (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that the oppose seems to be made on the basis of an algorithm I am unsure how describing the reasoning as "robotic" is anything other than accurate. Mechanical reasoning is often described as "robotic". It is entirely appropriate to criticise the basis for others opinions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We have just as much knowledge that the oppose was based on an algorithm as we do that it was based on a moment of religious inspiration. We don't know.  It could be heuristic.  It could be rigid.  We should assume good faith.  And I think that it is a tad bit disingenuous to characterize yellow monkey's comments as "comment on reasoning" when the very next sentence is "There are always the usual robot admins who oppose people with the same robot-reasoning."  We all know people with mechanical RfA criteria, that doesn't give anyone license to make comments like that. Protonk (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the algorithm is specifically described on Stifle's userpage. Giggy (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't justify the invective. Protonk (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it justifies anything, I was just pointing out the inaccuracy of the first two sentences of your previous post, for future reference. Giggy (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * &larr;I accept the criticism; I feel that users who don't have a minimal level of contributions in Wikipedia namespace should get them before getting the bit. That opinion has changed in the past, and may change in the future, but I'm happy with it for now. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * pure numbers arent enough, with the tools we have available a person can get a lot of WP space edits and still not understand the processes. Gnangarra 12:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was aware of Stifle's 500 WP namespace requirement before running for adminship, so his/her oppose was somewhat expected. :) I think my contribs across all namespaces show that I have the required level of policy knowledge, and I wasn't willing to spend time making edits that I wouldn't otherwise make in WP namespace just to reach an arbitrary figure. I read policies and talk pages much more than I contribute to them, so I've definitely seen Stifle's name around more than s/he's seen mine, so I've no problem with the oppose. Somno (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a minimum, Gnangarra. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)